Weldon Merritt

Nowhere, because it's not there. In any event, I believe most of us would agree that approving the minutes in open session lifts the secrecy of the minutes, but not the secrecy of everything that occured in executive session.

Nothing in RONR requires it.

My apology if someone already posted this and I missed it, but I recently learned at the AIP West Coast Practicum that John Stackpole died last Sunday, January 12. As I understand, he had recently been disgnosed with pancreatic cancer. I know that Dr. Stackpole's contributions to this forum will be sorely missed.

No, you keep voting, as often as necessary, until someone gets a majority.

I concur with Dr. Kapur's excellent response.

That's the exact wording? No complete sentences? That seems rather doubtful, but I have seem some strange bylaws, so I suppose it could be. But where ddo the staggered terms come form? That's not in the provisions you listed.

I, too, disagree with Mr. Elsman and concur with Dr. Kapur and Mr. Brown.

I would say that it depends on exactly what those duties and privileges are. For example, a pro tem secretary certainly would not have the privilge of voting, if that was one of the secretary's privileges, unless the pro tem secretary is a member of the body that is meeting. (And in that case, he or she would be voting in whatever other capacity he or she holds, and not as secretary pro tem.)

Not only is there no need for a vote, but taking a vote would be improper. Taking a vote carries the possibilty of rejection of the request, which would violate the member's right to have the minutes read on demand.

Even if sent in advance, the minutes must be read on the demand on any member.

Since Mr. Elsman has not been back to clarify his post, I will venture to do so. I believe that he indeed meant "until a main motion to waive the audit fails." At least, that's how I understood it; and with that undestanding, I concur.

No problem. Happy to clarify. So far as RONR is concerned, the board has only the powers specified in the bylaws, and indeed is subordinate to the membership. So the default rule is that, yes, the membership can order the board to take specifed action, and the board is obliged to comply. But since you are talking about an HOA, there undoubtedly is a governing statute. It is possible that the statute grants more authoritty to the board, and limits that of the membership. Not having read the applicable statute, I can't say whether that is true for your HOA; I'm just saying that it is something you need to check into.

Neither of those are required by RONR. It is possible that one or both my be required by your state's nonprofit corporation code (if you are incorporated), so you will need to check that.

That puts another wrinkle into it. I had assumed that you were opposed to waiving the audit. Since that is not the case, a substitute motion would not work, because if the amendment by substitution is adopted, it would replace the motion to waive the audit. So I now think that your only option is to make your motion after the motion to waive the audit fails (if it does). Depending on how the meeting agenda is organized, you might be able to make your motion immediately after the motion to waive the audit fails. But if not, you certainly should be able to make it under New Business. This assumes the motion is in order at all. As I menioned in my previous resposne, such a motion may or may not be in order. Depending on the condo governing documents, the general membership may not have the authority to order the board to take the desired action. If not, however, the membership still, in my opinion, could adopt a motion recommending that the board take that action.

Your intended motion as worded would be a main motion, so it would not be in order at any time while the motion to waive the audit (another main motion) is pending. What you could do is, during debate, urge defeat of the motion to waive the audit and state that if that motion is defeated, you will offer a motion along the lines of what you have in mind. You also might be able to offer your motion as a substitute (a form of amendment) to the motion to waive the audit. Note that I offer no opinion on whether your motion otherwise would be in order. It very well could be that such a motion would violate some of the condo governing documents, and thus not be in order at all. You will have to look to those documents to determine that.

I concur with Mr. Katz. The contitution controls.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of ex-officio. It means that a person holds one position (B) by virtue of holding another specified postion (A). So whoever is A also is B, ex-officio. The most common example is where the bylaws specify that the president is ex officio a member of every committee (usually with an exception or two). No one is ex-officio anything unless the ex-officio position is created by the bylaws. So no, the board cannot make someone an ex-offico secretary. What the board can do is elect a secretary pro tem for each meeting until the vacancy in the office can be filled properly. The secretary pro tem would perform the duties of the secretary in connection with the meeting, but would not acquire any of the secretary's rights (if any). For example, the secretary pro tem would not have a vote on any matter before the board (unless, of course, one of the officers is elected secretary pro tem, but then that officer would be voting in his or her capacity as an officer and not as secretary pro tem).

It is possible that the secretary is misunderstanding the rule that unfinished business "falls to the ground" following a periodic change in membership. But that applies only to a board, and only when the new officers take office (which may or may not be immediately on election, depending on the bylaws). And it certainly has no effect on any other business that may otherwise be in order. RONR, p. 488, l. 22 to p. 489, l. 16.

You can ask anything, but that does not mean that whomever you ask must agree to your request. Why do you want the president to vacate the chair? And what do you mean by "present our case to the members"? What are you trying to accomplish?

Seconds aren't necessary in committees. It doesn't "die"; it just is not adopted.

Unless I am misremembering, we were told at the NAP Convention that the 12th edition (due out in August 2020) will have an e-book version available. And the pagination won't matter becuase the citation format will change to (if I recall correctly) a paragraph and section format.

A view in which I concur (for whatever it may be worth). If there was a question during the meeting about the presence of a quorum, a Point of Order should have been raised then. Demonstrating the absence of a quorum after the fact is a fairly high burden.

The next time this happens (if it does), raise a Point of Order that the totals must be read. If the chair rules the point not well taken, appeal the ruling. That will put the decision in the hands of the assembly. Perhaps your arguments in favor of the appeal will be persuasive enough. But if not, and the assembly fails to overturn the chair's ruling, there isn't much else you can do from a parliamentary standpoint.

It seems to me that Dr. Stackpole's list makes a pretty persuasive argument. If that isn't persuasive enough, I don't know what would be.

That might not be possible for a govenmental entity, depending on where the "three-reading rule" appears.